Submitted by Boomalicious on Tue, 12/14/2004 - 6:58pm
I just read a story on Cnn.com about Scott Peterson who was found guilty of killing his wife Laci and their son (in utero). He has been sentenced to the death penalty. Here is an exerpt from the story:
REDWOOD CITY, California (CNN) -- Jurors who decided that Scott Peterson deserves to die say his lack of emotion played a large role in their decision....
But jurors who spoke to the media after Monday's recommendation say the callousness of the crime -- and Peterson's lack of emotion or remorse -- helped to condemn him..... Juror Richelle Nice, the mother of four children, pointed to Peterson's demeanor.
"No emotion, no anything. That spoke a thousand words," Nice said.
I am not trying to make a case for or against the death penalty (although I am against it.) I simply expect the justice system to be based on fact, not emotion. I believe that a persons emotional state should have no bearing on conviction or sentencing. Anyone can fake an emotion. Justice should be brought against actions, not performance in court. So, if someone kills a person, but cries, they deserve to be punished less severely? And if they don't cry, they die?
This really disturbs me too.
From the little I've heard aobut the case, it does sound like he did it, but nobody really knows except him. It really bothers me that a person can be put to death when the facts have not been proven. I agree, emotions should not be part of this case.
"Don't rock the boat?" But the boat is sinking from the dead weight of its dishonesty. Perhaps rocking it might spill out the cargo that's sinking it. - John Taylor Gatto
The case was circumstantial
No hard evidence anyway, was there? No direct witnesses, no direct evidence, etc. So the attorneys on the case have to play on something. That, and since Peterson didn't testify on his own behalf, all the jurors had to go on as far as he was concerned was what other people said about him, and on his demeanor in the courtroom. I'm certainly not saying that I agree--I am a hardcore opponant of the death penalty and I think a moratorium is long overdue. But emotion and emotional state plays into cases like this a lot.
I'm actually kind of surprised that, of all states, California still has a death penalty.
yep
It's awful.
And it depends so much on lawyers. Why does a persons sentence depend on who they have hired, or been appointed, for their defense?
Boomer is so 2005.
Should we discuss manditory m
Should we discuss manditory minimum sentencing? Designed to keep those evil pot smokers off the streets. They might drive too slow, eat too much Ben & Jerry's, or laugh at you. Danger! Danger!
Oh yeah
"Hey Kid! No smoking weed or you'll go to jail! Keep yourself busy and go buy a gun at Walmart and shoot something, why don't ya?"
Boomer is so 2005.
or drink a 6 pack
and drive home...
puffin away....
Hil
Ye shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you mad.
Aldous Huxley
Ye shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you mad.
Aldous Huxley
I heard about one poor soul
who got 8 years for selling acid at a Dead concert. Yup, ranks right up there with raping and murdering kids, yup indeedy.
%%%The unaimed arrow never misses%%%
Another example...
Of how the media can present whatever it is they want to present. Sure the jurors said his lack of emotion was a deciding factor however we all know that it had to take more than that during deliberation to convince all jurors of the death penalty. I hate that the death penalty is even an option, but it is and we deal with it...but I truly hope that more people than not realize that it takes more than a persons emotional state to determine guilt or innocence.
Does the death penalty
really have to be an option? Hmmm. Honestly, I think if more people were better educated about the death penalty (the cost of imposing the death penalty compared with the cost of keeping someone in prison for life, statistics about how the death penalty is not used fairly and targets minorities and the mentally ill, statistics about the number of people who are wrongly convicted and get the death penalty, etc.), it *wouldn't* be an option anymore, because people would start to demand that their legislators/governors/leaders strongly consider a moratorium. Just a thought.
Unfortunately....
...this country is not run by open-minded, loving people who believe in reforming criminals and helping the mentally ill. I refuse to believe that ANYONE is unable to be reformed...but, what can we do?
I think it was just that cons
I think it was just that considering the circumstances of their deaths, his non-reaction was pretty shocking. I don't think that was the sole reason for the verdict.
"A funny thing happens as the possibility of perfection recedes- The pleasure of life creeps in."
-Caitlyn Macy
Of course not the sole reason
But the jurors have said that his emotional state was a factor contributing to their decision. Maybe not a break or break factor, but I don't think it should enter into it at all.
Boomer is so 2005.
I was thinking the same thing
I was thinking the same thing this morning when I saw 3 of the jurors interviewed. They all mentioned the lack of emotion as a deciding factor. My intention is not to defend him. But who can say how they would react (in front of a audience) being faced with people deciding if you will live or die.
I guess it's easier to just e
I guess it's easier to just erase all emotion and become dead inside. It was a pretty heartless crime, no matter who did it.
exactly
and it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, life or death.
Boomer is so 2005.